Any Questions? (Identity Construction in Academic Conference Discussions) || References

References

Abels, Heinz (2007). Einfuhrung in die Soziologie: Band 2: Die Individuen in ihrerGesellschaft, Wiesbaden:Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften.

Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot (1981).Interrogation et argumentation.Langue francaise 52: 5–22.

Antaki, Charles (2007). Mental-health practitioners’ use of idiomatic expressions insummarising clients’ accounts.Journal of Pragmatics 39: 527–541.

Antaki, Charles, and Sue Widdicombe (eds.) (1998).Identities in talk, London:Sage.Archakis, Agiris, and Villy Tsakona (2005).Analyzing conversational data in GTVH

terms: A new approach to the issue of identity construction via humor.Humor 18:41–68.

Aretin, Kerstin von, and Gunter Wess (eds.) (2005). Wissenschaft erfolgreich kom-munizieren: Erfolgsfaktoren der Wissenschaftskommunikation, Weinheim:Wiley.

Arminen, Ilkka, Petra Auvinen, and Hannele Palukka (2010). Repairs as the lastorderly provided defense of safety in aviation.Journal of Pragmatics 42 (2): 443–446.

Ascheron, Claus (2007). Die Kunst des wissenschaftlichen Prasentierens und Pub-lizierens: Ein Praxisleitfaden fur junge Wissenschaftler, Heidelberg u.a: ElsevierSpektrum.

Atkinson, John Maxwell, and Paul Drew (1979).Order in court: The organisation ofverbal interaction in judicial settings, London:Macmillan.

Auer, Peter (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualisation. InPeter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio (eds.), The contextualization of language, 1–37,Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Auer, Peter (1999). Sprachliche Interaktion: Eine Einfuhrung anhand von 22 Klas-sikern, Tubingen:Niemeyer.

Auer, Peter (2007).Introduction.In Peter Auer (ed.), Style and social identities, 1–29,Berlin: De Gruyter.

Badger, Richard (2006). Investigating agonism in linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics38 (9): 1442–1456.

Bakhtin, Michail (1969).Literatur und Karneval: Zur Romantheorie und Lachkultur,Munchen:Hanser.

Bamme, Arno (2004). Science wars: von der akademischen zur postakademischenWissenschaft, Frankfurt am Main:Campus.

Barnes, Rebecca (2007). Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement inmeetings talk.Text & Talk 27 (3): 273–296.

Brought to you by | National Chung Hsing UniversityAuthenticated | 140.120.135.222Download Date | 3/27/14 8:46 PM

398 References

Baßler, Harald (2007). Diskussionen nach Vortragen bei wissenschaftlichen Tagun-gen. In Peter Auer and Harald Baßler (eds.), Reden und Schreiben in der Wis-senschaft, 133–156, Frankfurt am Main: Campus.

Beaufays, Sandra (2003).Wie werden Wissenschaftler gemacht? Beobachtungen zurwechselseitigen Konstitution von Geschlecht und Wissenschaft, Bielefeld: Tran-skript.

Becker-Mrotzek, Michael, and Reinhard Fiehler (eds.) (2002). Unternehmenskom-munikation, Tubingen:Narr.

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann (1969). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktionder Wirklichkeit: Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie, Frankfurt am Main: Fis-cher.

Biber, Douglas (2003).Variation among University Spoken and Written Registers: aNew Multi-Dimensional Analysis. In Pepi Leistyna and Charles F. Meyer (eds.),Corpus analysis, 47–70, Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Biber, Douglas, Randi Reppen, Victoria Clark, and Jenia Walter (2001).Representingspoken language in university settings: The design and construction of the spokencomponent of the T2K-SWAL Corpus. In Rita Simpson and John Swales (eds.),Corpus linguistics in North America, 48–57, Michigan: University of MichiganPress.

Blumer, Herbert (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method, Engle-wood Cliffs and NY:Prentice Hall.

Bolinger, Dwight (1957). Interrogative structures of American English: The directquestion, Alabama:University of Alabama Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1967). Postface. In Erwin Panofsky (ed.), Architecture gothique etpensee scolastique, 133–167, Paris: Editions de Minuit.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1970). Strukturalismus und soziologische Wissenschaftstheorie.In Pierre Bourdieu (ed.), Zur Soziologie der symbolischen Formen, 7–41, Berlin:Suhrkamp.

Bowles, Hugo, and Paul Seedhouse (2007). Interactional competence and the LSPclassroom. In Hugo Bowles and Paul Seedhouse (eds.), Conversation analysisand language for specific purposes, volume 63, Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Breithecker-Amend, Renate (1992). Wissenschaftsentwicklung und Erkenntnis-fortschritt: zum Erklarungspotenzial der Wissenschaftssoziologie von Robert K.Merton, Michael Polanyi und Derek de Solla Price, Munster:Waxmann.

Broad, William, and Nicholas Wade (1984). Betrug und Tauschung in der Wis-senschaft, Basel:Birkhauser.

Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some universals inlanguage use, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Brunner, Gisela (1997).Fachlichkeit, Muster und Stil in der beruflichen Kommunika-tion. In Margret Selting and Barbara Sandig (eds.), Sprech- und Gesprachsstile,254–285, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.


References 399

Bruxelles, Sylvie, and Veronique Traverso (2006). Usages de la particule voila dansune reunion de travail: analyse multimodale. In Martina Drescher and BarbaraFrank-Job (eds.), Les marqueurs discursifs dans les langues romanes, 71–92,Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Bucher, Hans-Jurgen (1994).Frage-Antwort-Dialoge.In Gerd Fritz and Franz Hund-snurscher (eds.), Handbuch der Dialoganalyse, 239–258, Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Burke, Peter (1980).The self: Measurement requirements from an interactionist per-spective.Social Psychology Quarterly 44: 18–29.

Burns, Stacy Lee (2009). Doing justice and demonstrating fairness in small claimsarbitration.Human Studies 32 (2): 109–131.

Carter, Ronald, and Michael McCarthy (2006). Cambrigde Grammar of English: AComprehensive Guide. Spoken and Written English. Grammar and Usage, Cam-bridge:Cambridge University Press.

Charaudeau, Patrick (1992).Grammaire du sens et de l’expression, Paris: .Hachette.Charon, Joel M. (1998).Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation,

an integration, New York:Prentice Hall.Cheng, An (2006). Analyzing and enacting academic criticism: the case of an L2

graduate learner of academic writing. Journal of second language writing 15 (4):279–306.

Chevalier, Fabienne (2011). Managing impartiality in French tourist offices: Re-sponses to recommendation-seeking questions.Discourse Studies 13 (2): 1–22.

Ciapuscio, Guiomar, and Wolfgang Kesselheim (2005). Identitatskonstitution inExperten-Laien-Kommunikation: Die Rolle der Textherstellungsverfahren. NeueRomania 32: 125–152.

Clayman, Steven (2010). Questions in Broadcast Journalism. In Alice Freed andSusan Ehrlich (eds.), “Why Do You Ask?”, 256–278, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage (2002). The news interview: Journalists andpublic figures on the air, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Clift, Rebecca (2007). Getting there first: Non-narrative reported speech in interac-tion. In Elizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting Talk, 120–149, Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clifton, Jonathan (2009). Beyond taxonomies of influence: ‘doing’ influence andmaking decisions in management team meetings. Journal of Business Communi-cation 46: 57–79.

Dannerer, Monika (2002). Allen Ernstes scherzen? Formen und Funktionen vonScherzen und Lachen in innerbetrieblichen Besprechungen. In Michael Becker-Mrotzek and Reinhard Fiehler (eds.), Unternehmenskommunikation, 89–114,Tubingen: Narr.

De Fina, Anna, Deborah Schiffrin, and Michael Bamberg (2006). Discourse andIdentity, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.


400 References

Deppermann, Arnulf (2000). Ethnographische Gesprachsanalyse: Zu Nutzenund Notwendigkeit von Ethnographie fur die Konversationsanalyse.Gesprachsforschung 1: 96–124.

Deppermann, Arnulf (2001). Gesprache analysieren: Eine Einfuhrung, Opladen:Leske und Budrich.

Drew, Paul, and John Heritage (eds.) (1992). Talk at work, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Holt (1995).Idiomatic expressions and their role in the or-ganization of topic transition in conversation. In Martin Everaert, Erik-Janvan derLinden, Andre Schenk, and Rob Schreuder (eds.), Idioms, 117–132, Hillsdale andHove: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Drew, Paul, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen (1997). Institutional dialogue. In Teun A.Van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction, 92–118, London: Sage.

Dubois, Betty Lou (1980). Genre and structure of biomedical speeches. The ESPJournal 1: 45–50.

Fandrych, Christian (2009). Gesprochene Wissenschaftssprache kontrastiv: Deutschim Vergleich zum Englischen und Polnischen. Vorstellung eines gemeinsamenForschungsvorhabens.In Edyta Bclachut, Leslaw Cirko, and Artur Tworek (eds.),Studia Linguistica XXVII, 7–30, Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wro-clawskiego.

Farr, Fiona (2003). Engaged listenership in spoken academic discourse: the case ofstudent-tutor meetings.Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2/1 67–85.

Fiehler, Reinhard (1999). Was tut man, wenn man ’kooperativ’ ist? Eine gesprachs-analytische Explikation der Konzepte ’Kooperation’ und ’Kooperativitat’. InAnnette Monnich and Ernst W. Jaskolski (eds.), Kooperation in der Kommunika-tion, 52–58, Munchen and Basel: Ernst Reinhardt.

Flowerdew, John (2002).Academic discourse, Edinburgh:Longman.Flynn, Pierce J. (1991).The ethnomethodological movement. Sociosemiotic interpre-

tations, Berlin and New York:De Gruyter.Ford, Cecilia (2010).Questioning in Meetings: Participation and Positioning.In Alice

Freed and Susan Ehrlich (eds.), “Why Do You Ask?”, 211–234, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Fortanet Gomez, Inmaculada, and Begona Belles Fortuno (2005). Spoken academicdiscourse: an approach to research on lectures.Volumen Monografico 161–178.

Franceschini, Rita (1995). Praferenzhandlungen in der Kategorisierung von Perso-nen. In Marek Czyzewski, Elisabeth Gulich, Heiko Hausendorf, and Maria Kast-ner (eds.), Nationale Selbst- und Fremdbilder im Gesprach, 384 – 388, Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag.

Frank, Jane (1990). You call that a rhetorical question? Forms and functions ofrhetorical questions in conversation.Journal of Pragmatics 14: 723–738.


References 401

Freed, Alice, and Susan Ehrlich (eds.) (2010).“Why Do You Ask?”: The Function ofQuestions in Institutional Discourse, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fuchs, Volker, and Serge Meleuc (2003). Linguistique francaise: francais langueetrangere, Frankfurt am Main:Lang.

Furchner, Ingrid (1997). Kompetenzunterschiede in der Interaktion: Eine Unter-suchung aus konversationsanalytischer Sicht, Dissertation: Bielefeld.

Galatolo, Renata, and Paul Drew (2006).Narrative expansions as defensive practicesin courtroom testimony.Text & Talk 26/6: 661–98.

Garfinkel, Harold (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs and NY:Prentice Hall.

Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks (1986). On formal structures of practical ac-tions. In Harold Garfinkel (ed.), Ethnomethodological Studies of Work, 160–191,London and New York: Routledge.

Gaulmyn, Marie-Madeleine de (1991). Expliquer des explications. In UlrichDausendschon-Gay, Elisabeth Gulich, and Ulrich Krafft (eds.), Linguistische In-teraktionsanalysen, 279–314, Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Glenn, Phillip (2003). Laughter in interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Goffman, Erving (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life, New York: Dou-bleday.

Goffman, Erving (1967).Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior, GardenCity and New York:Doubleday.

Goffman, Erving (1979).Footing.Semiotica 1 – 29.Goffman, Erving (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review 48: 1

– 17.Greco, Luca (2006). Identite, contexte et pratiques sociales: L’accomplissement in-

teractionnel d’un tour de table.Verbum 28 (2 – 3): 153–174.Grevisse, Maurice (1997).Le bon usage: Grammaire francaise, Paris: .Duculot.Gulich, Elisabeth, and Lorenza Mondada (2001). Konversationsanalyse. In Gunter

Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Christian Schmitt (eds.), Lexikon der romanistis-chen Linguistik, volume 2, 175–196, Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Gulich, Elisabeth, and Lorenza Mondada (2008). Konversationsanalyse: EineEinfuhrung am Beispiel des Franzosischen.Niemeyer.

Gulich, Elisabeth, and Uta Quasthoff (1985).Narrative Analysis.In Teun A. Van Dijk(ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 169–198, London: Academic Press.

Gumperz, John (1982). Discourse Strategies, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Gumperz, John (1992).Contextualization Revisited.In Peter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio(eds.), The contextualization of language, 39–53, Amsterdam and Philadelphia:Benjamins.


402 References

Gunthner, Susanne, and Thomas Luckmann (2002).Wissensasymmetrien in interkul-tureller Kommunikation. In Helga Kotthoff (ed.), Kultur(en) im Gesprach, 213–244, Tubingen: Narr.

Harwood, N. (2005). ‘I hoped to counteract the memory problem, but it made noimpact whatsoever’: Discussing methods in computing science using I. Englishfor Specific Purposes 24: 243–67.

Hausendorf, Heiko (2000). Zugehorigkeit durch Sprache. Eine linguistische Studieam Beispiel der deutschen Wiedervereinigung, Tubingen:Niemeyer.

Heritage, John (1998).Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Dis-tinctive Turn-Taking Systems. In Svetla Cmejrkova, Jana Hoffmanova, and OlgaMullerova (eds.), Dialoganalyse, 3–17, Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Heritage, John (1998a). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society 27:291–334.

Heritage, John (2002).The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostilequestion content.Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–1446.

Heritage, John, and D. Greatbach (1991). On the institutional character of institu-tional talk: The case of news interviews. In Deirdre Boden and Don Zimmerman(eds.), Talk and Social Structure, 93–137, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heritage, John, and Douglas W. Maynard (eds.) (2006). Communication in MedicalCare: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients, Cambridge andNew York: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexingepistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social PsychologyQuarterly 68: 15–38.

Heritage, John, and D.R Watson (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. InGeorge Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language, 123–162, New York: Irvington.

Hintikka, Jaakko (1981). Questions de reponses et bien d’autres questions encore.Langue francaise 52: 59–69.

Hoffmann, Ludwig, Hartwig Kalverkamper, and Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.)(1998).Fachsprachen/Languages for Special Purposes, Berlin: De Gruyter.

Holmes, Janet (2006). Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender inthe workplace.Journal of Pragmatics 38: 26–50.

Holt, Elizabeth, and Rebecca Clift (eds.) (2007).Reporting Talk: Reported Speech inInteraction, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Hood, Sue, and Gail Forey (2005). Presenting a conference paper. Getting interper-sonal with your audience.Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4: 291–306.

Hutchby, Robin, and Ian Wooffitt (1998). Conversation Analysis, Cambridge: PolityPress.

Hyland, Ken (1998a).Hedging in Scientific Research Articles, Berlin: Benjamins.Hyland, Ken (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disci-

plinary knowledge.Applied Linguistics 20 (3): 341–367.


References 403

Ivanic, Roz (1998).Writing and Identities: The discoursal construction of identity inacademic writing, Amsterdam:Benjamins.

Jefferson, Gail (1972). Side sequences. In David Sudnow (ed.), Studies in socialinteraction, 294–338, New York: Free Press.

Jefferson, Gail (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In GeneLerner (ed.), Conversation analysis, 13–31, Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Jung, Euen Hyuk (2006). Misunderstanding of academic monologues by nonnativespeakers of English.Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1928–1942.

Kallmeyer, Werner, and Reinhold Schmitt (1996). Forcieren oder: Die ver-scharfte Gangart: Zur Analyse von Kooperationsformen im Gesprach. In WernerKallmeyer (ed.), Gesprachsrhetorik, 19–118, Tubingen: Narr.

Kenway, J., D. Epstein, and R. Boden (2005).Building Networks: Academic SupportKit, London:Sage.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine (1991). La politesse dans les interactions verbales.In Sorin Stati, Edda Weigand, and Franz Hundsnurscher (eds.), Dialoganalyse II,39–59, Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine (2005). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face be-havior, Paris:Armand Colin.

Knapp, Karlfried, and Gerd Antos (2009). Introduction to the handbook series: Lin-guistics for problem solving. In Karlfried Knapp and Barbara Seidlhofer (eds.),Handbook of Foreign Language Communication and Learning, v–xv, Berlin: DeGruyter.

Koshik, Irene (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions: Assertive questions in everydayinteraction, Amsterdam and Philadelphia:Benjamins.

Kotthoff, Helga (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context-sensitivity of preference structures.Language in Society 22: 193–216.

Kotthoff, Helga (1997a). Erzahlstile von mundlichen Witzen. In Margret Seltingand Barbara Sandig (eds.), Sprech- und Gesprachsstile, 123–169, Berlin and NewYork: De Gruyter.

Kotthoff, Helga (1997b). The interactional achievement of expert status: Creatingasymmetries by “Teaching conversational lectures” in TV discussions. In HelgaKotthoff and Ruth Wodak (eds.), Communicating gender in context, 139–178,Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kotthoff, Helga (1998). Spaß Verstehen: Zur Pragmatik von konversationellem Hu-mor, Tubingen:Niemeyer.

Kotthoff, Helga (2002). Ironie in Privatgesprachen und Fernsehdiskussionen: ZumZusammenhang von Konversation, Kognition und Ethnografie. In Inken Keimand Wilfried Schutte (eds.), Soziale Welten und kommunikative Stile, 445–471,Tubingen: Narr.


404 References

Kotthoff, Helga (2007).The humorous stylization of ’new’ women and men and con-servative others. In Peter Auer (ed.), Style and social identities, 445–475, Berlin:De Gruyter.

Krassin, Gudrun (1994).Neuere Entwicklungen in der franzosischen Grammatik undGrammatikforschung, Tubingen:Niemeyer.

Kresic, Marijana (2006). Sprache, Sprechen und Identitat: Studien zur sprachlich-medialen Konstruktion des Selbst, Munchen: Iudicium.

Kroskrity, Paul (2000). Identity.Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 9: 111 – 114.Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral

participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lavric, Eva (1990). Mißverstehen verstehen: Opake Kontexte und Ambiguitaten bei

indefiniten und definiten Nominalphrasen, Graz: Institut fur Sprachwissenschaftder Universitat Graz.

Lavric, Eva (1995). Referential ambiguities, possible worlds, and universes: Theproblem of substitution in contexts of propositional attitude. In Richard Geiger(ed.), Reference in multidisciplinary perspective, 45–62, Hildesheim and Zurichand New York: Georg Olms.

Lavric, Eva (1996). “Cet air doublement immobile qu’ont les choses mobiles quandelles ne bougent pas ...”: Haloeffekt und Relativsatz-Ankundigung. ModerneSprachen 40 (2): 157–170.

Lavric, Eva (2001). Fulle und Klarheit: Eine Determinantensemantik Deutsch -Franzosisch - Spanisch, Tubingen:Stauffenburg.

Lavric, Eva (2010). La chica esa - ton collegue la. Les Auerismes, ou: Commentco-construire les referents dans la conversation.In Paul Danler, Maria Iliescu, andHeidi Siller-Runggaldier (eds.), Actes du XXV Congres International de Linguis-tique et Philologie Romanes, Innsbruck, 2-8 septembre 2007, 473–481, Tubingen:Niemeyer.

Law, John (1988).Le laboratoire et ses reseaux.In Michel Callon (ed.), La science etses reseaux, 117–148, Paris: La Decouverte.

Leon, Jacqueline (1997). Approche sequentielle d’un objet semantico-pragmatique:Le couple Q-R. Questions alternatives et questions rhetoriques. Revue deSemantique et de Pragmatique 1: 23–50.

Leon, Jacqueline (2004). Preference and “bias” in the format of French news inter-views: The semantic analysis of question-answer pairs in conversation.Journal ofPragmatics 36 (1885-1920).

Lerner, Gene (2002). Turn-sharing: The choral co-production of talk-in-interaction.In Cecilia Ford, Barbara Fox, and Sandra Thompson (eds.), The Language ofTurns and Sequences, 225–256, New York: Oxford University Press.

Lerner, Gene (ed.) (2004). Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation,Amsterdam:Benjamins.


References 405

Levinson, Stephen C. (1992). Activity types and language. In Paul Drew and JohnHeritage (eds.), Talk at work, 66–100, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Limberg, Holger (2010). The Interactional Organization of Academic Talk: OfficeHour Consultations, Amsterdam:Benjamins.

Luckmann, Thomas (1986). Grundformen der gesellschaftlichen Vermittlung desWissens: Kommunikative Gattungen. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie undSozialpsychologie 27: 191–211.

Mauranen, Anna (2002). ‘A good question’: Expressing evaluation in academicspeech. In Giuseppina Cortese and Philip Riley (eds.), Domain-specific English,115–140, Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Mauranen, Anna (2003). ‘But here’s a flawed argument’: Socialisation into andthrough metadiscourse. In Pepi Leistyna and Charles F. Meyer (eds.), Corpusanalysis, Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Mauranen, Anna (2004). They’re a Little Bit Different... Observations on Hedgesin Academic Talk. In Karin Aijmer and Anna-Brita Stenstrom (eds.), Discoursepatterns in spoken and written corpora, volume 120 of Pragmatics & beyond,173–197, Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Mauranen, Anna (2006). Spoken discourse, academics and global English: A cor-pus perspective. In Rebecca Hughes (ed.), Spoken English, TESOL and AppliedLinguistics, 143–158, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mead, George Herbert (1910a). Social Consciousness and the Consciousness ofMeaning.Psychological Bulletin 7: 397–405.

Mead, George Herbert (1910b). What Social Objects Must Psychology Presuppose?Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 7: 174–180.

Mead, George Herbert (1913). The Social Self. Journal of Philosophy, Psychologyand Scientific Methods 10: 374–380.

Mead, George Herbert (1922). A Behavioristic Account of the Significant Symbol.Journal of Philosophy 19: 157–163.

Mondada, Lorenza (1999). L’accomplissement de l’etrangeite dans et parl’interaction: Procedures de categorisation des locuteurs. Journal of LinguisticAnthropology 134: 20 – 34.

Mondada, Lorenza (2000). La construction du savoir dans les discussions scien-tifiques: Apport de la linguistique interactionnelle et de l’analyse conversation-nelle a la sociologie des sciences.Revue Suisse de Sociologie 26: 615–36.

Mondada, Lorenza (2003).La construction du savoir dans les pratiques scientifiquesd’equipes de recherche: Analyse de trajectoires d’objets de discours et de savoir.In Anita Berit Hansen and Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen (eds.), Structures linguis-tiques et interactionnelles dans le francais parle, 31–67, Universite de Copenh-ague: Institut d’Etudes Romanes.

Mondada, Lorenza (2005). Chercheurs en interaction: Comment emergent lessavoirs, Lausanne:Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.


406 References

Muller, Andreas P. (2002). Aspekte kommunikativer Stilistik in organisationalen(Sub-)Kulturen. In Helga Kotthoff (ed.), Kultur(en) im Gesprach, 181–209,Tubingen: Narr.

Muller, Andreas P., and Alfred Kieser (eds.) (2003). Communication in organiza-tions: Structures and practices, Frankfurt am Main:Lang.

Munsberg, Klaus (1994). Mundliche Fachkommunikation: Das Beispiel Chemie,Tubingen:Narr.

Nevile, Maurice (2004). Beyond the black box: Talk-in-interaction in the airlinecockpit, Aldershot:Ashgate.

Norrick, Neal, and Alice Spitz (2008).Humor as a resource for mitigating conflict ininteraction.Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1661–1686.

Oakey, David (2002).Lexical phrases for teaching academic writing in English: Cor-pus evidence. In Stefania Nuccorini (ed.), Phrases and phraseology, data anddescriptions, 85–105, Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Ochs, Elinor (1996).Linguistic resources for socializing humanity.In John Gumperzand Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 407–437, Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paltridge, Brian (2004).Academic writing.Language teaching 37: 87–105.Pan, Y. Scollon S. W., and R. Scollon (2001). Professional communication in inter-

national settings, Oxford:Blackwell.Partington, Alan (2011). “Double-speak” at the White House: A corpus-assisted

study of bisociation in conversational laughter-talk.Humor 24 (4): 371–398.Pepin, Nicolas (2007). Identites fragmentees: Elements pour une grammaire de

l’identite, Frankfurt am Main and Bern:Lang.Perakyla, Anssi, Charles Antaki, Sanna Vehvilainen, and Ivan Leudar (2008). Con-

versation Analysis and Psychotherapy, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Pomerantz, Anita (1975). Second assessments: A study of some features of agree-

ment/disagreement, Ph.D. dissertation:University of California.Pomerantz, Anita (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the cooperation of mul-

tiple constraints. In Jim Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversa-tional interaction, 79–112, New York: Academic Press.

Pomerantz, Anita (1984).Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some featuresof preferred / dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage(eds.), Structures of social action, 79–112, Cambridge and New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Poro, Susanne (1999).Beziehungsrelevanz in der beruflichen Kommunikation, Frank-furt am Main:Lang.

Raisanen, Christine (2002). The conference forum: A system of interrelated genresand discursive practices. In Eija Ventola, Celia Shalom, and Sandra Thompson(eds.), The language of conferencing, 69–93, Frankfurt am Main: Lang.


References 407

Rakotonoelina, Florimond (2006). Le signalement de l’auto-citation dans les dis-cours scientifiques: Le cas des sciences de l’information et de la communication.Travaux de linguistique 52: 101–113.

Ravelli, Louise, and Robert Ellis (2005). Analysing academic writing: Contextu-alised frameworks, London and New York:Continuum.

Raymond, Geoffrey (2003).Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogativesand the structure of responding.American Sociological Review 68: 939–967.

Recski, Leonardo Juliano (2004).“It’s really ultimately very cruel”: Contrasting En-glish intensifier collocations across EFL writing and academic spoken discourse.Revista de documentacao de estudos em linguıstica teorica e aplicada 20: 211–234.

Reis, Marga, and Inger Rosengren (1991). Einleitung. In Marga Reis and IngerRosengren (eds.), Fragesatze und Fragen, 1–12, Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Rendle-Short, Johanna (2006). The academic presentation: situated talk in action,Aldershot:Ashgate.

Richards, Keith, and Paul Seedhouse (2005).Applying Conversation Analysis.Riegel, Martin, Jean-Christophe Pellat, and Rene Rioul (2009). Grammaire

methodique du francais, Paris:Presses universitaires de France.Roberts, Celia (2010).Institutional discourse.In Janet Maybin and Joan Swann (eds.),

The Routledge Companion to English Language Studies, 181–195, Abingdon andNew York: Routledge.

Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth (1998). La communication scientifique orale: Etude descaracteristiques linguistiques et discursives d’un genre, Dissertation:Bordeaux.

Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth (2002). Science in the making: Scientific conference pre-sentations and the construction of facts. In Eija Ventola, Celia Shalom, and San-dra Thompson (eds.), The language of conferencing, 95–126, Frankfurt am Main:Lang.

Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth (2004).Visual textual patterns in scientific conference pre-sentations. In David Banks (ed.), Text and texture, 383–410, Paris: L’Harmattan.

Rowley-Jolivet, Elizabeth, and Shirley Carter-Thomas (2005).The rhetoric of confer-ence presentation introductions: Context, argument and interaction. InternationalJournal of Applied Linguistics 15 (1): 45–70.

Rundell, Michael (ed.) (2007). Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learn-ers: New Edition, Oxford:Macmillan.

Sacks, Harvey (1984a). Notes on methodology. In J. Maxwell Atkinson and JohnHeritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 21–27, Cambridge and New York:Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, Harvey (1984b).“On doing being ordinary”.In J. Maxwell Atkinson and JohnHeritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 413 – 429, Cambridge and New York:Cambridge University Press.


408 References

Sacks, Harvey (1987).On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequencesin conversation. In Graham Button and J.R Lee (eds.), Talk and social organisa-tion, 54–69, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Sacks, Harvey (1995). Lectures on conversation: Ed. by Gail Jefferson, Volume 1and 2., volume 1 and 2, Oxford:Blackwell.

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson (1978). A simplest sys-tematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Jim Schenkein(ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 7–55, New York:Academic Press.

Sauvageot, Aurelien (1962).Francais ecrit - francais parle, Paris:Larousse.Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1984).On some questions and ambiguities in conversation.In

J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 28–52,Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In PaulDrew and Anthony Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In Paul Drewand John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work, 101 – 134, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007a). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer inConversation Analysis, New York et al.:Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007b).A tutorial on membership categorization.Journal ofPragmatics 39: 462 – 482.

Schmidt, Thomas, and Kai Worner (2005). Erstellen und Analysieren vonGesprachskorpora mit EXMARaLDA.Gesprachsforschung 6: 171–195.

Schmitt, Reinhold (2003). Inszenieren: Struktur und Funktion eines gesprachs-rhetorischen Verfahrens.Gesprachsforschung 4: 186–250.

Schmitt, Reinhold, and Daniela Heidtmann (2002). Die interaktive Konstitution vonHierarchie in Arbeitsgruppen. In Michael Becker-Mrotzek and Reinhard Fiehler(eds.), Unternehmenskommunikation, 179–208, Tubingen: Narr.

Schwitalla, Johannes (1996). Beziehungsdynamik: Kategorien fur die Beschreibungder Beziehungsgestaltung sowie der Selbst- und Fremddarstellung in einem Streit-und Schlichtungsgesprach. In Werner Kallmeyer (ed.), Gesprachsrhetorik, 279–349, Tubingen: Narr.

Selting, Margret (1991). w-Fragen in konversationellen Frage-Antwort-Sequenzen.In Marga Reis and Inger Rosengren (eds.), Fragesatze und Fragen, 263–288,Tubingen: Niemeyer.

Selting, Margret (1998). Gesprachsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem (GAT). Lin-guistische Berichte 173: 91–123.

Selting, Margret, and Volker Hinnenkamp (1989).Stil und Stilisierung: Arbeiten zurinterpretativen Soziolinguistik, Tubingen:Niemeyer.


References 409

Selting, Margret, and Barbara Sandig (eds.) (1997). Sprech- und Gesprachsstile,Berlin and New York:De Gruyter.

Shalom, Celia (1993).Established and evolving spoken research process genres: Ple-nary lecture and poster session discussions at academic conferences. English forSpecific Purposes 12: 37–50.

Shalom, Celia (2002).The academic conference: A forum for enacting genre knowl-edge. In Eija Ventola, Celia Shalom, and Sandra Thompson (eds.), The languageof conferencing, 51–68, Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Simpson, James (ed.) (2011). The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics, Lon-don:Routledge.

Skern, Tim (2004).That’s a good question.Heureka 3: 10 – 11.Sokol, Malgorzata (2007).Private self and institutional self in academic e-discourse:

the case of an electronic seminar. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, TomaszPludowski, and Dolores Valencia Tanno (eds.), The Media and International Com-munication, 391–405, Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Soll, Ludwig (1974). Gesprochenes und geschriebenes Franzosisch, Berlin: ErichSchmidt.

Spiegel, Carmen (1997). Selbst- und Fremdstilisierungen in umweltpolitischen Au-seinandersetzungen. In Margret Selting and Barbara Sandig (eds.), Sprech- undGesprachsstile, 286–317, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.

Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas (1997).Interaktionsprofile: Die Herausbildung individuellerHandlungstypik in Gesprachen, Opladen:Westdeutscher Verlag.

Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas (2002). Interaktionsorganisation als (meta-)kommunikativeRessource des Argumentierens. In Sabine Bastian and Francoise Hammer (eds.),Aber, wie sagt man doch so schon .., 11–25, Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Stivers, Tanya (2011).Morality and question design: “of course” as contesting a pre-supposition of askability. In Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig(eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, 82–106, Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Swales, John (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Swales, John (2004). Evaluation in Academic Speech: First Forays. In Gabriella delLungo Camiciotti and Elena Tognini Bonelli (eds.), Academic discourse, 31–53,Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Tannen, Deborah (1993).What’s in a Frame? Surface evidence for underlying expec-tations. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Framing in discourse, 14–56, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Tannen, Deborah (2002).Agonism in academic discourse.Journal of Pragmatics 34:1651–1669.


410 References

Techtmeier, Barbel (1998). Fachtextsorten der Wissenschaftssprachen VI: Diskus-sion(en) unter Wissenschaftlern. In Ludwig Hoffmann, Hartwig Kalverkamper,and Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.), Fachsprachen/Languages for Special Pur-poses, 509–517, Berlin: De Gruyter.

Thorle, Britta (2005).Fachkommunikation im Betrieb: Interaktionsmuster und beruf-liche Identitat in franzosischen Arbeitsbesprechungen, Tubingen:Narr.

Tracy, Karen (1997). Colloquium: Dilemmas of academic discourse, Norwood:Ablex.

Tracy, Karen, and J. Robles (2009). Questions, questioning, and institutional prac-tices: An introduction.Discourse Studies 11: 131–152.

Traverso, Veronique (1999).L’analyse des conversations, Paris:Nathan.Vassileva, Irena (2009). Argumentative strategies in conference discussion sessions.

In Eja Suomela-Salmi and Fred Dervin (eds.), Cross-linguistic and cross-culturalperspectives on academic discourse, 219–241, Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Vehvilainen, Sanna (2009). Student-initiated advice in academic supervision. Re-search on Language & Social Interaction 42/2 42 (2): 163–190.

Ventola, Eija (1999). Semiotic spanning at conferences: Cohesion and coherencein and across conference papers and their discussions. In Wolfram Bublitz, UtaLenk, and Eija Ventola (eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse, 101–123, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Ventola, Eija (2002). Why and what kind of focus on conference presentations? InEija Ventola, Celia Shalom, and Sandra Thompson (eds.), The language of con-ferencing, 15–50, Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Walter, Elizabeth (ed.) (2005). Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Cam-bridge:Cambridge University Press.

Watts, Richard (2003).Politeness, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Watzlawick, Paul, Janet Helmick Beavin, and Don D. Jackson (1967).Pragmatics of

human communication. A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and para-doxes,New York: Norton.

Webber, Pauline (2002).The paper is now open for discussion.In Eija Ventola, CeliaShalom, and Sandra Thompson (eds.), The language of conferencing, 227–254,Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Wenger, Etienne (1999). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, Etienne (2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction,http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm:(10.03.2011).

West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society1 (2): 125 – 151.

Wiegand, Herbert Ernst (1979). Kommunikationskonflikte und Fachsprachenge-brauch. In Wolfgang Mentrup (ed.), Fachsprachen und Gemeinsprache, 25–58,Dusseldorf: Schwann.


References 411

Wolf, Ricarda (1999).Soziale Positionierung im Gesprach.Deutsche Sprache 27 (1):69–94.

Wooffitt, Ian (2005).Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparativeand Critical Introduction, London: Sage


Any Questions? (Identity Construction in Academic Conference Discussions) || References

Documents

Transcript of Any Questions? (Identity Construction in Academic Conference Discussions) || References